SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic - New Ohio speeding ticket rules (aka why to avoid Ohio roads)

Posted: Jun 02 2010 06:21 pm

Dayton Daily Press wrote:

Estimates OK for speeding tickets, court rules
The Associated Press
Updated 11:42 AM Wednesday, June 2, 2010

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio's highest court has ruled that a person may be convicted of speeding purely if it looked to a police officer that the motorist was going too fast.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that an officer's visual estimation of speed is enough to support a conviction if the officer is trained, certified by a training academy, and experienced in watching for speeders. The court's 5-1 decision says independent verification of a driver's speed is not necessary.

The court upheld a lower court's ruling against a driver who challenged a speeding conviction that had been based on testimony from police officer in Copley, 25 miles south of Cleveland. The officer said it appeared to him that the man was driving too fast.

This is more than mildly ridiculous. I liked it better when things like "proof" were required in the justice system.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jun 02 2010 06:26 pm

Every state has a "basic speed law", which pretty much means "if a cop thinks you're driving too fast for the road conditions, you probably are".

Also, come on, if you're flying down the street at 90, you honestly expect that a cop is mistaken that you're speeding just by looking at you?

"I thought he was going 65 in a 55" probably isn't gonna cut it, but we all know how to tell when someone is driving way to fucking fast.

Posted: Jun 02 2010 06:39 pm

UsaSatsui wrote:

Every state has a "basic speed law", which pretty much means "if a cop thinks you're driving too fast for the road conditions, you probably are".

Also, come on, if you're flying down the street at 90, you honestly expect that a cop is mistaken that you're speeding just by looking at you?

"I thought he was going 65 in a 55" probably isn't gonna cut it, but we all know how to tell when someone is driving way to fucking fast.

i understand this line of thinking, but you also have to understand there is potential for abuse of power.

Posted: Jun 02 2010 06:43 pm

A few days ago, I got cut off on a fairly empty highway when I was going 65. Not ten seconds later I pass by him getting pulled over by a state trooper. That was a satisfying morning.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jun 02 2010 07:01 pm

username wrote:

UsaSatsui wrote:

Every state has a "basic speed law", which pretty much means "if a cop thinks you're driving too fast for the road conditions, you probably are".

Also, come on, if you're flying down the street at 90, you honestly expect that a cop is mistaken that you're speeding just by looking at you?

"I thought he was going 65 in a 55" probably isn't gonna cut it, but we all know how to tell when someone is driving way to fucking fast.

i understand this line of thinking, but you also have to understand there is potential for abuse of power.

There always is.

"I see you have a broken taillight"

See, the cop doesn't just say, "You were speeding". He will say "The vehicle, a red Corvette Longdick, was traveling at a rate of speed I estimated top be about 90 miles per hour. It was passing several other cards going at highway speeds, including myself, and I was traveling around 70..." Then you get to question the officer about his observations ("Are you sure it wasn't a Lamborghini Bigcock?") and explain your side of the story as well.

This doesn't change anything drastic, it just means the cop doesn't have to know your exact speed to say you were speeding.

Posted: Jun 02 2010 07:07 pm

I always made it a general rule of thumb to just avoid Ohio period

Posted: Jun 02 2010 07:09 pm

This is dumb. Why would you use a subjective method when you have a perfectly good objective method of determining speed? I don't think speed radars are very expensive, plus this enables any officer to pull anyone over as the cop can claim they were speeding even if they weren't. This could be extrapolated as a tactic for illegal searches.

Regardless of my ramblings-on, it doesn't make much sense to me.

Posted: Jun 02 2010 07:14 pm

Meh, I drive the speed limit and have never gotten pulled over, shit I've had cops go around me because they wanted to speed. Laughing

Posted: Jun 02 2010 07:30 pm

Regardless if they pull you over for suspicion of speeding they still need you to say "Yes", to the question, "Can we search your vehicle?" I think getting arrested is a different story though, being as I think they went through my car after my DUI. I think speeding is only arrestable when it is a certain MPH over the speed limit or something.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jun 02 2010 07:41 pm

Douche McCallister wrote:

Regardless if they pull you over for suspicion of speeding they still need you to say "Yes", to the question, "Can we search your vehicle?" I think getting arrested is a different story though, being as I think they went through my car after my DUI. I think speeding is only arrestable when it is a certain MPH over the speed limit or something.

This. They can only search your vehicle with your permission, or if they have a reasonable suspicion they will find something (your car reeks of pot, for example)...or if they see something out in the open (hide your fucking open containers!)

And if you are arrested, they have the right to do a search of you and your immediate surroundings, which does include your car.

You can't be arrested for speeding, but if you're driving way too fast, they can bust you for reckless endangerment.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

A cop can arrest you for speeding based on their observation, however it will only take one good lawyer to destroy this in court. Just throw the cop's motive in question or add an element of weather from the day. Good lawyers would have no problem getting this thrown out of court. It simply isn't worth the prosecutor's time to fight against it.

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

I know here that 20 MPH over the limit can qualify as reckless driving.

Posted: Jun 02 2010 11:42 pm

joshwoodzy wrote:

I know here that 20 MPH qualifies as reckless driving.

its criminal speeding out here. i guess its the same thing.

also, you cant get pulled over for not wearing a seat belt. if you get pulled over for something else and you dont have a seat belt on, then they can add that to your ticket, but that cant be the SOLE reason for getting pulled over.

Wizard Joined: Jun 12 2009 Posts: 4209

They changed that in Missouri. Now they can pull you over for it... but honestly, why wouldn't you take the .5 seconds it requires to put the damned thing on in the first place?

Posted: Jun 03 2010 08:59 am

Same in Virginia. And possibly Maryland as well.

Posted: Jun 03 2010 09:12 am

I'm fine with this as long as they're truly targeting the assholes who drive 90mph while weaving in and out of traffic. But if they get me going 10 or 15 over the speed limit (15 over is the fastest I ever drive) on an open road, that's pretty shitty.

Joined: Mar 13 2009 Location: Arlington Posts: 467

joshwoodzy wrote:

I know here that 20 MPH over the limit can qualify as reckless driving.

I couldn't believe this when I got pulled over a few years ago on the VA/WVA border. I was doing 77 at 10am with no one around and I had to go to court like 7 times to get this thing reduced to a traffic violation. I've gotten tickest before and had to go to court, but this was the first time a judge asked the prosecutor if they were going to request a bail amount set up for me. I was like, WTF? I had no idea what was going to happen and I was about to freak out.

Back on topic, I completely understand that a cop with training can eyeball someone doing 80-90 mph. My beef is that they can nail you going 65 instead of 55 just on their opinion. No one is going to waste their time fighting that ticket. When the cops have to hit their quota at the end of the month this would totaly suck.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jun 03 2010 09:29 am

GPFontaine wrote:

A cop can arrest you for speeding based on their observation, however it will only take one good lawyer to destroy this in court. Just throw the cop's motive in question or add an element of weather from the day. Good lawyers would have no problem getting this thrown out of court. It simply isn't worth the prosecutor's time to fight against it.

Christ, man, why pay a few thou for a lawyer? Just pay the damn hundred dollar ticket.

Besides, traffic court is extremely informal. Prosecutors aren't involved, just the judge and the cop who gave you the ticket.

Posted: Jun 03 2010 09:33 am

I read this story of a lawyer who paid something like $20000 to contest a parking ticket out of principle. He won.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

UsaSatsui wrote:

GPFontaine wrote:

A cop can arrest you for speeding based on their observation, however it will only take one good lawyer to destroy this in court. Just throw the cop's motive in question or add an element of weather from the day. Good lawyers would have no problem getting this thrown out of court. It simply isn't worth the prosecutor's time to fight against it.

Christ, man, why pay a few thou for a lawyer? Just pay the damn hundred dollar ticket.

Besides, traffic court is extremely informal. Prosecutors aren't involved, just the judge and the cop who gave you the ticket.

If the charge was reasonable I would pay it.

If the charge felt in any way unreasonable. For example, if the guy said, "I think he was doing about 85MPH" and I was doing 74 in a 65. Fuck no.

A lawyer costs about $200 and usually they can at least get a ticket thrown with a charitable donation. So the $300 bucks would probably be equivalent to the speeding fine. However, not having your insurance find out = priceless. Or perhaps not priceless, but more to the tune of + $700-$1500 per year.

So fuck no. Arbitrary speeding tickets are a poor decision and I would fight them.

Posted: Jun 03 2010 12:59 pm

Yesterday, my friend got pulled over for following to closely to another car, $113.... It was ridiculous

Posted: Jun 03 2010 01:20 pm

Crazy_Bastard wrote:

Yesterday, my friend got pulled over for following to closely to another car, $113.... It was ridiculous

I'm a big fan of tailgating people who displease me. Thus far I've gotten away with it.

Posted: Jun 03 2010 03:02 pm

Expert testimony has always been admissible in court. Police are required to receive special training in these types of observations (not just any cop can say you were speeding), so there's nothing wrong with this.

Posted: Jun 03 2010 03:12 pm

The-Excel wrote:

I read this story of a lawyer who paid something like $20000 to contest a parking ticket out of principle. He won.

You just gave a perfect example of a god damn idiot.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

Expert testimony has always been admissible in court. Police are required to receive special training in these types of observations (not just any cop can say you were speeding), so there's nothing wrong with this.

Police are also capable of lying or embellishing the truth to get results they desire. At least when technology fucks up it doesn't do it on purpose.